Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri P Kempanna Gowda

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024MFA/4300/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a miscellaneous first appeal against a Motor Vehicles Court award where the insurer sought to deny claim coverage for pillion rider. The High Court relied on Ramkhiladi to modify the award, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 1 lakh with 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

The claimants are entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Insurance Company must deposit this amount with 6% interest from the date of petition until realization.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri P Kempanna Gowda — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:11062 MFA No. 4300 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4300 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., TIPTUR BRANCH, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN, 5^TH FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. MR. K.CHANDRASHEKAR.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. P.KEMPANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O M.B.PUTTALINGE GOWDA,

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O P.KEMPANNA GOWDA,

¶15

SMT. NAGAMANI MAJOR, W/O M.K.GANGADHARA,

¶16

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MUTTUGADAHALLI, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶17

SRI. M.K.KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:11062 MFA No. 4300 of 2013

¶20

S/O KEMPANNA GOWDA, R/AT NO.28, 2^ND CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, CHANNIYAPPA LAYOUT, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE-79.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAJA.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.55/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL MACT, TURUVEKERE.

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Sri.Anup Seetharama Rao., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao., for the appellant has appeared through video conferencing.

¶27

Sri.Raju.L., learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has appeared in person.

¶28

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 17.06.2013. A perusal of office note depicts that the fourth respondent is served and unrepresented. The fourth respondent has neither

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11062 MFA No. 4300 of 2013

¶31

engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶32

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.

¶33

The claimants filed claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation and urged several contentions. In response to the notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel. The first respondent did not file written statement. The second respondent Insurance Company filed its written statement. It admitted that the policy does not cover the risk to any other person who rides bike and met with accident and denied claim averments. Among other grounds it prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:15.03.2013 allowed the petition in part. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the memorandum of appeal.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:11062 MFA No. 4300 of 2013

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers and the records with utmost care.

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to the decision in RAMKHILADI AND ANOTHER Vs. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.9393/2019.

¶38

In view of decision referred to supra, the Judgment dated:15.03.2013 passed by the 18^th Addl. MACT, Turuvekere in MVC No.55/2012 is modified holding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶39

The Insurance Company is liable to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶40

Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit if any to the Tribunal forthwith for refund of the same to the Insurance Company.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11062 MFA No. 4300 of 2013

¶42

The claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire

¶43

amount.

¶44

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶45

allowed in part .

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri P Kempanna Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri P Kempanna Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S C Shivakumar Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri B N Nagesh Vs Sri Ravikumara

The Manager Vs Yadhavamurthy

The Branch Manager Vs Kum P G Mouna

Sri Kataiah @ Durgada Kataiah Vs K S Riyazuddin

Sri Nataraju Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.